• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mozilla’s CEO steps down amid gay marriage furor[W:577]

They called a boycott against a man that gave money to outlaw marriage for them. That is what happened. Both these people have rights to speak out.

Wrong. The guy gave money to continue to define marriage as between a man and a woman, not "outlaw" anyone's marriages, or outlaw it as a ceremony for anyone.

Andrew Sullivan and I don't agree on much. But it seems we do agree that targeting individuals for purposes of the political intimidation of others is a tactic outside the pale for civil "tolerant" society.
 
Then where does it stop? Why not start protecting people's private held opinions starting with this guy? Instead you point to other cases in the past which, it seems to me, you use to justify your position here.

No justification. Just pointing out the the hype when people are acting like this guy is some kind of Martyr. This stuff happens to ordinary people all the time and without all this hype. It obvious this is being used for political purposes.
 
And now here is a growing boycott against Mozilla and many Gays are being embarrassed by this harassment of Eich.. Is there a winner in any of this?

Well I guess the people who did not want to work under Eich as CEO won. It certainly didn't change anything else about this issue.
 
Probably just Eich, who with any luck walked away from a pathetic company with a big fat severance check.

I believe you're right. Getting to the top of a multi billion dollar corporation like that suggests he is no fool. Mozilla will lose all the way around.

His successor better be sure that any past donations somehow remain hidden from Leftists. Most other people wouldn't care where any donations may have gone..
 
No justification. Just pointing out the the hype when people are acting like this guy is some kind of Martyr. This stuff happens to ordinary people all the time and without all this hype. It obvious this is being used for political purposes.

Of course the left is using this for political purposes. Why else?
 
I believe you're right. Getting to the top of a multi billion dollar corporation like that suggests he is no fool. Mozilla will lose all the way around.

His successor better be sure that any past donations somehow remain hidden from Leftists. Most other people wouldn't care where any donations may have gone..

I hope the next CEO they hire is a pro-gay marriage advocate who opposed Prop 8, and the traditional marriage supporters call for a widespread boycott.

The pendulum swings both ways.
 
Of course the left is using this for political purposes. Why else?

I would say the majority of the politicians on the left use it for political purposes, but I don't think the majority of the left in general does. Hell I think the majority of politicians on BOTH the right and left in regards to causes use them simply for political purposes.
 
I hope the next CEO they hire is a pro-gay marriage advocate who opposed Prop 8, and the traditional marriage supporters call for a widespread boycott.

The pendulum swings both ways.

Prop8 was a mockery of democracy. The pro-gay marriage crowed lost so they had to circumvent democracy to get their way.... Then progressives sit there and talk about democracy and voter ID laws as if they even give a **** about democracy?

I'm not even opposed to gay marriage either - as a matter of fact I think government should stay out of marriage entirely, however that doesn't change the fact progressives showed their true totalitarian colors with Prop8.

The best part is that the proposition was on the ballot - if banning gay marriage was illegal it should have never been on the ballot in the first place. The reality of that situation was that gays thought gay marriage would be overwhelmingly passed, however they misjudged their "popularity" and lost and then the cried foul.....Furthermore gays weren't trying to legalize gay marriage they were looking for social acceptance and the second they failed at that they went running to the courts...

The way I view that whole Prop8 fiasco would be like a little kid losing at a game and crying "no fair" while smashing everything in sight.... It was childish at best and they needed a progressive judge to rule in favor of tyranny.
 
This entire thread...

4041284195_4dbd78b0a2.jpg
 
That has nothing to do with the thread nor does it have anything to do with his post.
forcing someone out of a job because they don't agree with your opinion to me is a dangerous road to go down as you make yourself victim to the same.

It most certainly does have something to do with his post, but whatever.

While, as I stated before, I think this is definitely overkill, this is different than "forcing someone out" (and we don't know exactly how that went down) because they "don't agree with your opinion" (the issue being that he actively donated money to suppress homosexuals). It's slightly more nuanced than that.
 
Prop8 was a mockery of democracy. The pro-gay marriage crowed lost so they had to circumvent democracy to get their way.... Then progressives sit there and talk about democracy and voter ID laws as if they even give a **** about democracy?

I'm not even opposed to gay marriage either - as a matter of fact I think government should stay out of marriage entirely, however that doesn't change the fact progressives showed their true totalitarian colors with Prop8.

The best part is that the proposition was on the ballot - if banning gay marriage was illegal it should have never been on the ballot in the first place. The reality of that situation was that gays thought gay marriage would be overwhelmingly passed, however they misjudged their "popularity" and lost and then the cried foul.....Furthermore gays weren't trying to legalize gay marriage they were looking for social acceptance and the second they failed at that they went running to the courts...

The way I view that whole Prop8 fiasco would be like a little kid losing at a game and crying "no fair" while smashing everything in sight.... It was childish at best and they needed a progressive judge to rule in favor of tyranny.

I agree with everything you wrote here.

I am in favor of gay marriage. I'm personally in favor of letting every adult of age get married - polygamists of legal age, siblings, etc. I really don't give a hoot who marries who or what people's bedroom preferences are. I don't scream "BIGOT" at the people who do hold the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.

You are so right about Prop 8. The presumption was that every single person (or at least a very healthy majority) in California felt the same as the progressives do - only to find out the very painful way that not everyone feels as they do about gay marriage. That caused the entire LGBT community and every progressive between Maine and California to have an epic meltdown and howl like a scorched cat.

And even thought the voters of California spoke (including 7 out of 10 black Obama voters), it took some judge named Walker to decide their votes didn't count.

All in all, the gay marriage debate has become extremely wearisome.
 
Tyranny? You people are insane.

Civil rights should not be left to the will of the masses.
 
I would say the majority of the politicians on the left use it for political purposes, but I don't think the majority of the left in general does. Hell I think the majority of politicians on BOTH the right and left in regards to causes use them simply for political purposes.

In this particular instance it is the left who went after Eich.
 
Tyranny? You people are insane.

Civil rights should not be left to the will of the masses.

They should be inalienable and yet we have government COMPELLING speech and association.
 
Did it take two opposing side to attack Brendan Eich? I don't think so.

Eich indulged in backing a highly politically charged issue and the opposing side decided they would ban his products. All is fair in love and war. There are two sides to everything.
 
Eich indulged in backing a highly politically charged issue and the opposing side decided they would ban his products. All is fair in love and war. There are two sides to everything.

Exactly. When a company fires every employee who voted against Prop. 8, then there will be no outcry against them for doing so.
 
Eich indulged in backing a highly politically charged issue and the opposing side decided they would ban his products. All is fair in love and war. There are two sides to everything.

The Left attacked Eich and following his departure from Mozilla then, and only then, did other people of every political hue, make an issue of it.
 
Companies fire people everyday for lesser crimes.


I noted many times in this thread that I support the call to remove anti-discrimination statutes and allow companies to fire people for race, sex, sexual orientation and whatever other reason they please. I take it that you too support such exercises of freedom.
 
Back
Top Bottom